Letting people flourish: defining and suggesting skills for maintaining and improving positive health.

Background: The concept of "positive health" emerged from the need for a holistic and more dynamic perspective on health, emphasising the ability of individuals to adapt and self-manage. The positive health conversation tool helps understand how people score on six positive health dimensions. However, skills within these dimensions to maintain or improve health have not yet been described. This is important for enabling individuals to put health advice into practise. Therefore, this paper aims to define and suggest skills for maintaining and improving positive health. Subsections: Suggestions for definitions of skills within the positive health dimensions are described using the functional, interactive, and critical health literacy framework. Additionally, executive functions and life skills were incorporated. Moreover, the environment's role in these individual skills was noted, mentioning organisational health literacy that emphasises organisations' responsibility to provide comprehensible health information to all individuals. We propose that health promotion interventions can incorporate the proposed skills in practical exercises while aligning intervention materials and implementation tools with end-users and implementers. Discussion and conclusion: The suggested skills for maintaining and improving positive health are a first step towards a more comprehensive understanding and open to discussion. These skills may also be applied to other practical conversation tools for maintaining or improving health. Increasing positive health through the defined skills may be especially relevant to those with a lower socioeconomic position who also have limited health literacy and thereby may contribute to reducing health inequalities. Taken together, strengthening the defined skills may hopefully contribute to allowing people to flourish in life.

Use of the Smoking Cessation App Ex-Smokers iCoach and Associations With Smoking-Related Outcomes Over Time in a Large Sample of European Smokers: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital interventions are increasingly used to support smoking cessation. Ex-smokers iCoach was a widely available app for smoking cessation used by 404,551 European smokers between June 15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. This provides a unique opportunity to investigate the uptake of a freely available digital smoking cessation intervention and its effects on smoking-related outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate whether there were distinct trajectories of iCoach use, examine which baseline characteristics were associated with user groups (based on the intensity of use), and assess if and how these groups were associated with smoking-related outcomes. METHODS: Analyses were performed using data from iCoach users registered between June 15, 2011, and June 21, 2013. Smoking-related data were collected at baseline and every 3 months thereafter, with a maximum of 8 follow-ups. First, group-based modeling was applied to detect distinct trajectories of app use. This was performed in a subset of steady users who had completed at least 1 follow-up measurement. Second, ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the baseline characteristics that were associated with user group membership. Finally, generalized estimating equations were used to examine the association between the user groups and smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time. RESULTS: Of the 311,567 iCoach users, a subset of 26,785 (8.6%) steady iCoach users were identified and categorized into 4 distinct user groups: low (n=17,422, 65.04%), mild (n=4088, 15.26%), moderate (n=4415, 16.48%), and intensive (n=860, 3.21%) users. Older users and users who found it important to quit smoking had higher odds of more intensive app use, whereas men, employed users, heavy smokers, and users with higher self-efficacy scores had lower odds of more intensive app use. User groups were significantly associated with subsequent smoking status, quitting stage, and self-efficacy over time. For all groups, over time, the probability of being a smoker decreased, whereas the probability of being in an improved quitting stage increased, as did the self-efficacy to quit smoking. For all outcomes, the greatest change was observed between baseline and the first follow-up at 3 months. In the intensive user group, the greatest change was seen between baseline and the 9-month follow-up, with the observed change declining gradually in moderate, mild, and low users. CONCLUSIONS: In the subset of steady iCoach users, more intensive app use was associated with higher smoking cessation rates, increased quitting stage, and higher self-efficacy to quit smoking over time. These users seemed to benefit most from the app in the first 3 months of use. Women and older users were more likely to use the app more intensively. Additionally, users who found quitting difficult used the iCoach app more intensively and grew more confident in their ability to quit over time.

[Infants with an unexplained event: management of brief resolved unexplained events revised]. / Zuigelingen met een kortdurend, onverklaard incident.

In this article, the new Dutch pediatric guideline Brief Resolved Unexplained Event is discussed, which replaces the old guideline Apparent Life Threatening Event. The main goal of the new guideline is identification of a group of low-risk infants who need not be admitted to the hospital and in which only limited diagnostic workup is indicated. Three fictional cases are presented to highlight the major changes in management of infants who present with an unexplained event. Application of the new guideline will likely result in less clinical admissions and diagnostic testing in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of general practitioner- versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164. CONCLUSIONS: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak-Delayed Referral of Colorectal and Lung Cancer in Primary Care: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1-29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6-230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3-47) to 41 days (IQR 7-102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2-7) to 6 days (IQR 3-9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9-52), 18 (IQR 7-40), and 9 (IQR 3-44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis.

[Best possible start for child and parent]. / Kansrijke start voor kind en ouder.

The health of women during the periconception period and pregnancy is important for a healthy start of the child. All care providers can make a major contribution to this. In this learning article we provide answers to a number of questions that have been collected from the professional field about preconception care and care for vulnerable pregnant women. Our aim is to inform general practitioners and specialists who assist women with a (possible) desire to have children about proactive care in pregnancy, childbirth and child care. Included are concrete actions of the general practitioner when healthy women wish to become pregnant, which medical history and other characteristics of a pregnant woman negatively affects the health of her (unborn) child, and which signals in a first pregnancy predispose for problems after and in a subsequent pregnancy and what role can the GP play in this. Furthermore, we discuss signs of vulnerability in the consulting room, how transmural risk selection can be applied and we provide an overview of interventions applicable in primary care or where to refer to.

Detection of colon cancer recurrences during follow-up care by general practitioners vs surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In the I CARE study, colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive follow-up care from either a general practitioner (GP) or a surgeon. Here, we address a secondary outcome, namely, detection of recurrences and effect on time to detection of transferring care from surgeon to GP. METHODS: Pattern, stage, and treatment of recurrences were described after 3 years. Time to event was defined as date of surgery, until date of recurrence or last follow-up, with death as competing event. Effects on time to recurrence and death were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression. Restricted mean survival times were estimated. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 141 were randomly assigned to the GP and 162 to the surgeon. Patients were male (67%) with a mean age of 68.0 (8.4) years. During follow-up, 46 recurrences were detected; 18 (13%) in the GP vs 28 (17%) in the surgeon group. Most recurrences were detected via abnormal follow-up tests (74%) and treated with curative intent (59%). Hazard ratio for recurrence was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41 to 1.36) in GP vs surgeon group. Patients in the GP group remained in the disease-free state slightly longer (2.76 vs 2.71 years). Of the patients, 38 died during follow-up; 15 (11%) in the GP vs 23 (14%) in the surgeon group. Of these, 21 (55%) deaths were related to colon cancer. There were no differences in overall deaths between the groups (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.46). CONCLUSION: Follow-up provided by GPs vs surgeons leads to similar detection of recurrences. Also, no differences in mortality were found.

Patient experiences of GP-led colon cancer survivorship care: a Dutch mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer survivorship care constitutes both follow-up and aftercare. GP involvement may help to personalise care. AIM: To explore patients' experiences of GP-led versus surgeon-led survivorship care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Patients with stage I to III colon cancer were recruited from eight Dutch hospitals and randomised to receive care by either the GP or surgeon. METHOD: A mixed-methods approach was used to compare GP-led care with surgeon-led care. After 1 year the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used to measure quality aspects of care. Next, interviews were performed at various time points (3-6 years after surgery) to explore patients' experiences in depth. RESULTS: A total of 261 questionnaires were returned by patients and 25 semi-structured interviews were included in the study. Overall, patients were satisfied with both GP-led and surgeon-led care (ratings 9.6 [standard deviation {SD} 1.1] versus 9.4 [SD 1.1] out of 10). No important differences were seen in quality of care as measured by CQI. Interviews revealed that patients often had little expectation of care from either healthcare professional. They described follow-up consultations as short, medically oriented, and centred around discussing follow-up test results. Patients also reported few symptoms. Care for patients in the GP-led group was organised in different ways, ranging from solely on patient's initiative to shared care. Patients sometimes desired a more guiding role from their GP, whereas others preferred to be proactive themselves. CONCLUSION: Patients experienced a high quality of colon cancer survivorship care from both GPs and surgeons. If the GP is going to be more involved, patients require a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.

The role of general practitioners in the work guidance of cancer patients: views of general practitioners and occupational physicians.

PURPOSE: To explore views of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs) on the role of GPs in work guidance of cancer patients. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, two focus groups with GPs (N = 17) and two focus groups with OPs (N = 10) were conducted. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by data-driven analysis. RESULTS: GPs generally indicated that they inquire about patients' occupations but do not structurally document these. GPs described offering support and advice to patients regarding their work, while other GPs stated they do not interfere with their patients' work or return to work (RTW) process. In general, GPs stated that they do not aspire a professional role in the work guidance of patients, due to lack of expertise and not having sufficient knowledge in work regulations and legislation. In contrast, OPs anticipated a proactive role from GPs concerning work guidance in cancer patients, and they expected GPs to refer cancer patients to the OP, when required. Moreover, they emphasised the importance of communication between GPs and OPs about patients' work-related problems to achieve common goals. CONCLUSIONS: GPs can contribute to cancer patients' RTW process by supporting patients, giving advice and providing referral to other health professionals. Better cooperation between GPs and OPs may improve work guidance in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: When cancer patients with work-related issues get appropriate advice and support from GPs and referred in time to OPs, the RTW process and staying at work of cancer patients may be positively affected.

Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess participant-reported factors associated with non-follow-up with colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In May 2019, we distributed a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire (n = 4,009) to participants in the Dutch CRC screening program who received a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Among respondents who reported no colonoscopy, we assessed the presence of a contraindication, and those without were compared with those who reported colonoscopy by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 2,225 respondents (56% response rate), 730 (33%) reported no colonoscopy. A contraindication was reported by 55% (n = 404). Decisional difficulties (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18-0.47), lacking the opportunity to discuss the FIT outcome (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72), and a low estimated risk of CRC (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.76) were negatively associated with follow-up. Knowledge items negatively associated with follow-up included having an alternative explanation for the positive FIT (OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.21-0.43), having trust in the ability to self-detect CRC (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), and thinking that polyp removal is ineffective (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.82). The belief that the family physician would support colonoscopy showed the strongest positive association with follow-up (OR = 2.84; 95% CI, 2.01-4.02) CONCLUSIONS: Because decisional difficulties and certain convictions regarding CRC and screening are associated with non-follow-up, personalized screening counseling might be an intervention worth exploring as a means of improving follow-up in the Dutch CRC screening program. Involving family physicians might also prove beneficial.

The Impact of the COVID Pandemic on the Incidence of Presentations with Cancer-Related Symptoms in Primary Care.

Introduction: In the Netherlands, the onset of the coronavirus pandemic saw shifts in primary health service provision away from physical consultations, cancer-screening programs were temporarily halted, and government messaging focused on remaining at home. In March and April 2020, weekly cancer diagnoses decreased to 73% of their pre-COVID levels, and 39% for skin cancer. This study aims to explore the effect of the COVID pandemic on patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in primary care in The Netherlands. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using routine clinical primary care data. Monthly incidences of patient presentations for cancer-related symptoms in five clinical databases in The Netherlands were analysed from March 2018 to February 2021. Results: Data demonstrated reductions in the incidence of cancer-related symptom presentations to primary care during the first COVID wave (March-June 2020) of -34% (95% CI: -43 to -23%) for all symptoms combined. In the second wave (October 2020-February 2021) there was no change in incidence observed (-8%, 95% CI -20% to 6%). Alarm-symptoms demonstrated decreases in incidence in the first wave with subsequent incidences that continued to rise in the second wave, such as: first wave: breast lump -17% (95% CI: -27 to -6%) and haematuria -15% (95% CI -24% to -6%); and second wave: rectal bleeding +14% (95% CI: 0 to 30%) and breast lump +14% (95% CI: 2 to 27%). Presentations of common non-alarm symptom such as tiredness and naevus demonstrated decreased in-cidences in the first wave of 45% (95% CI: -55% to -33%) and 37% (95% CI -47% to -25%). In the second wave, tiredness incidence was reduced by 20% (95% CI: -33% to -3%). Subgroup analy-sis did not demonstrate difference in incidence according to sex, age groups, comorbidity status, or previous history of cancer. Conclusions: These data describe large-scale primary care avoidance that did not increase until the end of the first COVID year for many cancer-related symptoms, suggestive that substantial numbers of patients delayed presenting to primary care. For those patients who had underlying cancer, this may have had impacted the cancer stage at diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients' perspective.

PURPOSE: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. METHODS: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care-based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients' ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. RESULTS: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician's knowledge about patients' life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients' lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician's knowledge about patients' life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

[An infant with a complicated infection of the umbilicus]. / Een zuigeling met een gecompliceerde navelontsteking.

BACKGROUND: An umbilical infection (omphalitis) is frequent in de neonatal period. The infection usually presents as a relatively mild cellulitis. However, in rare cases omphalitis has a complicated course. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 20-day-old infant was referred to our Emergency Department with a fever and red umbilicus. Our diagnosis was "omphalitis" and after taking cultures we started with flucloxacillin and gentamicin intravenously. Upon clinical deterioration, we added ceftazidime and performed an ultrasound of the abdomen. A urachal remnant was found. The umbilical swab was positive for Staphylococcus aureus, which we treated with flucloxacillin monotherapy until the infiltrate disappeared on ultrasound. CONCLUSION: A patient with an omphalitis should be referred to the pediatrician. Clinical admission, obtaining cultures and starting antibiotic treatment is necessary. A large number of health care providers are involved in the care during the neonatal period. Therefore, broad knowledge about prevention and early identification of this disease is important.

Addressing colon cancer patients' needs during follow-up consultations at the outpatient clinic: a multicenter qualitative observational study.

PURPOSE: To describe colon cancer patients' needs and how healthcare providers respond to these needs during routine follow-up consultations in hospital. METHODS: A multicenter qualitative observational study, consisting of follow-up consultations by surgeons and specialized oncology nurses. Consultations were analyzed according to Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences. Patients' questions, cues, and concerns were derived from the data and categorized into supportive care domains. Responses of healthcare providers were defined as providing or reducing space for disclosure. Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a short questionnaire. RESULTS: Consultations with 30 patients were observed. Questions typically centered around the health system and information domain (i.e., follow-up schedule and test results; 92%). Cues and concerns were mostly associated with the physical and daily living domain (i.e., experiencing symptoms and difficulties resuming daily routine; 43%), followed by health system and information (i.e., miscommunication or lack of clarity about follow-up; 28%), and psychological domain (i.e., fear of recurrence and complications; 28%). Problems in the sexuality domain hardly ever arose (0%). Healthcare providers provided space to talk about half of the cues and concerns (54%). Responses to cancer-related versus unrelated problems were similar. Overall, the patients were satisfied with the information and communication received. CONCLUSIONS: Colon cancer patients express various needs during consultations. Healthcare providers respond to different types of needs in a similar fashion. We encourage clinicians to discuss all supportive care domains, including sexuality, and provide space for further disclosure. General practitioners are trained to provide holistic care and could play a greater role.

Views of breast cancer survivors on work participation guidance by general practitioners: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors can be at high risk of having work-related problems. Previous studies suggest that GPs could discuss work participation with cancer patients and provide guidance. The aim this study is to explore the experiences and expectations of breast cancer survivors with their GPs' role regarding guidance on work participation and return to work. METHODS: A qualitative study with Dutch female breast cancer survivors was held in the Netherlands. Four focus groups with 25 participants were conducted and audio-taped. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Breast cancer survivors reported a wide range of experiences with guidance from their GPs regarding work participation. Patients who contacted their GPs with work-related issues felt listened to during the consultation. Some patients experienced very limited or no guidance, while others were intensively guided by their GPs. The guidance was provided in the form of counseling, psychosocial support, and referral to other health care professionals. When cancer patients experienced problems with reintegration in work, they expected GPs to have a supportive and referring role in work participation guidance. CONCLUSION: In returning to work, breast cancer survivors expect their GPs to play a supportive role, especially when they encounter difficulties in reintegrating. However, their actual experience of guidance received from their GPs varied, from none received at all, to intensive support provided.

Symptoms and seeking supportive care and associations with quality of life after treatment for colon cancer: Results from the I CARE cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients treated for colon cancer report many symptoms that affect quality of life (QoL). Survivorship care aims at QoL improvement. In this study, we assess associations between symptoms and seeking supportive care and lower QoL and QoL changes overtime during survivorship care. METHODS: A prospective cohort of colon cancer survivors. Questionnaires are administered at inclusion and 6 months later to evaluate symptoms, functioning and seeking supportive care including associations with QoL, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: The mean QoL score at the first questionnaire was 82 (scale 1-100), which improved over time. Pain, bowel symptoms and problems in physical, role, cognitive or social functioning are associated with lower QoL at inclusion but are not associated with QoL changes over time. Seeking support for lower bowel symptoms, physical functioning or fatigue is associated with lower QoL. After 6 months, seeking support for upper bowel symptoms or physical functioning is associated with a tendency towards less QoL improvement. CONCLUSION: QoL of colon cancer survivors improves over 6 months, but seeking support for specific symptoms barely contribute to this improvement. IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the importance of addressing symptoms, problems related to functioning and seeking supportive care during survivorship care.

Smoking cessation strategy in the national cervical cancer screening program (SUCCESS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial and process evaluation in Dutch general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer screening in general practice could be a routine moment to provide female smokers with stop smoking advice and support. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a stop smoking strategy delivered by trained practice assistants after the cervical smear, and to evaluate the implementation process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a two-arm, pragmatic cluster randomised trial, in Dutch general practice. Randomisation takes place 1:1 at the level of the general practice. Practices either deliver the SUCCESS stop smoking strategy or the usual care condition. The strategy consists of brief stop smoking advice based on the Ask-Advise-Connect method and is conducted by trained practice assistants after routine cervical cancer screening. The primary outcome is the performance of a serious quit attempt in the 6 months after screening. Secondary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence abstinence, reduction in the number of cigarettes per day and transition in motivation to quit smoking. Follow-up for these measurements takes place after 6 months. Analysis on the primary outcome aims to detect a 10% difference between treatment arms (0.80 power, p=0.05, using a one-sided test), and will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. The process evaluation will assess feasibility, acceptability and barriers or enablers to the strategy's implementation. For this purpose, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via questionnaires and in-depth interviews, respectively, in both individual study participants and involved staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport approved of the trial after an advisory report from the Health Council (Nr. 2018/17). A licence was provided to conduct the study under the Population Screening Act. Study results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL5052 (NTR7451).

Stop smoking advice by practice assistants after routine cervical screening in general practice: A qualitative exploration of potential barriers and enablers.

BACKGROUND: Cervical screening could be an appropriate routine moment to provide female smokers with tailored stop smoking advice. In Dutch general practice, cervical smears are performed by practice assistants. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed in preparation for a randomised trial to identify potential barriers and enablers for a brief stop smoking strategy performed by trained practice assistants after routine cervical screening. METHODS: Between December 2016 and March 2017 three focus group meetings were held with ten practice assistants, three nurses, and six general practitioners to explore their views and expectations towards the proposed approach. We analysed data using thematic analysis. Identified factors are presented within the framework of the Social-Ecological Model. RESULTS: Potential barriers and enablers were identified at individual, interpersonal, and workplace levels. Practice assistants, nurses and GPs did not consider assistants to have a role in stop smoking care. They believed it is feasible to register smoking status but had reservations towards providing advice by assistants, for which knowledge and skills are needed. Practice assistants' own beliefs about smokers and smokers' response to stop smoking advice might influence how assistants and smokers interact. An explanation of why advice is given could help, provided assistants have enough time and experience with the smear. The nurses' availability and general practitioners' view on prevention might affect the delivery of the strategy by the assistant. CONCLUSION: At individual, interpersonal, and workplace levels, several factors could influence the provision of a stop smoking strategy by a practice assistant.

Delivering colon cancer survivorship care in primary care; a qualitative study on the experiences of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: With more patients in need of oncological care, there is a growing interest to transfer survivorship care from specialist to general practitioner (GP). The ongoing I CARE study was initiated in 2015 in the Netherlands to compare (usual) surgeon- to GP-led survivorship care, with or without access to a supporting eHealth application (Oncokompas). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held at two separate points in time (i.e. after 1- and 5-years of care) to explore GPs' experiences with delivering this survivorship care intervention, and study its implementation into daily practice. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 GPs. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Overall, delivering survivorship care was not deemed difficult and dealing with cancer repercussions was already considered part of a GPs' work. Though GPs readily identified advantages for patients, caregivers and society, differences were seen in GPs' commitment to the intervention and whether it felt right for them to be involved. Patients' initiative with respect to planning, absence of symptoms and regular check-ups due to other chronic care were considered to facilitate the delivery of care. Prominent barriers included GPs' lack of experience and routine, but also lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities for organising care. Need for a monitoring system was often mentioned to reduce the risk of non-compliance. GPs were reticent about a possible future transfer of survivorship care towards primary care due to increases in workload and financial constraints. GPs were not aware of their patients' use of eHealth. CONCLUSIONS: GPs' opinions and beliefs about a possible future role in colon cancer survivorship care vary. Though GPs recognize potential benefit, there is no consensus about transferring survivorship care to primary care on a permanent basis. Barriers and facilitators to implementation highlight the importance of both personal and system level factors. Conditions are put forth relating to time, reorganisation of infrastructure, extra personnel and financial compensation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register; NTR4860 . Registered on the 2nd of October 2014.